Outdoors: Legislation is needed to help control deer population

Monday

Jun 30, 2014 at 7:52 PMJul 1, 2014 at 12:24 PM

By Mark Blazis

Things need to be where they're supposed to be. A weed, for example, is a perfectly good plant that's just located where we don't want it. Deer? I just paid for my hunting permit in Australia, where I'll be stalking free-ranging sambar and rusa deer — introduced species from Asia — along with wild and potentially dangerous water buffalo.

The permit that cost me about $22 is for pests, including feral pigs, goats, alien rabbits and other vermin. It doesn't even mention deer, which were introduced to Australia, went wild and bred like rabbits. They are now considered pests to be eradicated. For those of us who revere the whitetail, it's hard to believe any deer species would be classified as a pest. Same thing with the water buffalo.

But the reality is, even our native whitetails can become pests when not managed properly. Those who hinder scientific management can contribute to making deer pests. Block Island is a perfect example.

It has a deer population that has grown far beyond the island's carrying capacity. Plant damage is horrific. Lack of hunter support led to a plan for professional sharpshooters to control the herd using tax money, i.e., about $120,000, for services that local sportsmen would gladly provide for free.

The plan was stopped by objecting residents. The company performing the service, White Buffalo Inc., uses bait piles to efficiently attract deer — and sound suppressors or silencers on their rifles to minimize disturbance. Both are sound strategies where significant culling is needed. Their techniques are not to be associated with fair chase. Their goal is to effectively reduce harmful deer numbers. A limited number of bow hunters given too many restrictions can't be expected to reduce huge herds.

But snow conspired to cover bait for the sharpshooters, and Rhode Island law prohibits the use of silencers. The culling may not take place for another year. In the meantime, many are asking why can't we just extend the season for as long as we need to in overpopulated areas and give bow hunters a better chance to get the job done using bait and spotlights, too? If the goal is to quickly and most effectively reduce the herd in extreme cases, some restrictions are unrealistic. Impediments may need to be reduced to save an ecosystem. Anti-hunting factions on the island need to be more supportive to admit ethical, qualified archers on their land, too.

There are about 1,000 deer on Block Island. The plan was to cull about 200. Consider that at one time, there were no deer naturally occurring on the island. A handful brought there around 1969 has mushroomed and endangered the island's ecology. The Block Island fiasco should be a lesson to communities throughout our commonwealth. We need to support scientific management fully before populations get out of control and prove both outrageously costly and damaging.

Tufts Vet School's Dr. Sam Telford sent me excerpts from the 2013 report from the Massachusetts Governor's Lyme Disease Commission. It recommends that the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife explore the costs and benefits of changing the archery safety zone from 500 feet (the legal distance for gun shooters) to 150 feet from a dwelling. Objectors should know that it's perfectly legal to bow hunt even closer to a home with written permission — and a privileged number of archers successfully harvest deer under those conditions without incident.

That extra 350 feet of orbiting land around housing is now a major habitat for deer that need culling — and a significant impediment to deer reduction in overpopulated communities. With overwhelming reason, local bow hunters have been trying to get legislators to make this change for decades. Their recalcitrance has been more a political than a scientific reaction.

The present law makes no sense, especially in areas like Eastern Massachusetts where the majority of land is now legally inaccessible to management. New Jersey is far ahead of us in this matter. It successfully changed their archery safety zone from 450 feet from a habitation to 150 feet in 2010, when the governor signed the Bow Hunting Safety Zone Perimeter Bill. Safety was initially a concern, but since that change, there has been absolutely no increase in hunting-related accidents. But there have been important reductions in problem deer populations. New York is following suit.

Deer hunters and biologists were recently supported by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who announced that he wants reduced bow hunting setback distances throughout New York. Assemblymen Anthony Palumbo, R-New Suffolk, and Fred Thiele, I-Sag Harbor, are prioritizing the passing of a bill to reduce that distance from 500 feet to 150 feet. Last year, New York's state Senate passed the bill, but it was stalled in the Assembly's Economic Conservation Committee. Cuomo believes that setback reduction would not only make more land available for hunting in suburban areas, but also "help manage locally over-abundant deer populations."

Long Island is presently a worst-case scenario of poor deer management. The population there is so high and destructive that some want to call in the United States Department of Agriculture to have professionals do night hunting, using baiting and rifles with silencers. The $200,000-plus cost, though, would provide only a temporary solution. So many are asking why can't hunters be afforded those same effective means to resolve the problem — and cost the taxpayer nothing?

Massachusetts should get more serious about reducing problem populations of deer — especially in Eastern Massachusetts, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. Bow hunters' setback should be changed from 500 feet to 150 feet as soon as possible. Sunday bow hunting with permission on private land should also be instituted right away. Every scientist not fearing political consequences agrees with them. It's time for our legislators to recognize the great difference between a bow and a gun and act reasonably to make the former a much more effective management tool.